Opinion Dear Narayana Murthy, here’s why you need to read Karl Marx, Thoreau and John Ruskin

Yet, my philosophic anarchy gives me the strength to question this sort of instrumental and morally faulty reasoning. Let me make three observations.

First, it is wrong to keep worshipping the fetish of economic prosperity and productivity without looking at what really matters for the growth of a sane and egalitarian society — the practice of distributive justice, or the spirit of non-possessiveness and egalitarian ethos of sharing. In fact, if Murthy opens his eyes, and converses with, say, a housewife in a poor/lower middle class patriarchal family, a daily wage earner, a security guard, an auto-rickshaw driver in Mumbai or Delhi, a landless farmer in Bihar or Uttar Pradesh, or even an otherwise well-qualified “guest” lecturer in Indian universities, he will realise that they are not lazy. In fact, some of them are working day and night — even more than 70 hours in a week.

Yet, they remain poor. In fact, even for a skilled daily wage earner in a state like Bihar, it is difficult to earn more than Rs 16,000 per month. They have not chosen to be poor. The reason behind the cycle of poverty is the very rationale of “productivity” without distributive justice, or “growth” without equity. One need not be a “communist” for seeing this structural violence; one just needs to be self-introspective and humane. In fact, Murthy can look at the huge discrepancy in the salary structure of some of the leading corporate houses in India. Even in 2023, a report suggests, Infosys is paying young freshers only Rs. 3.72 lakh annually. But then, as the report says, the CEO’s pay is almost 2,200 times a fresher’s pay.

Second, I would urge Murthy to reflect on what can broadly be perceived as “alienation” in the work sphere. Well, young Karl Marx wrote extensively on “alienation” or “estrangement”— the kind of work that is far removed from creative play, and causes a sense of fatigue and meaninglessness. Yes, a creative artist can spend even 15 hours with absolute mindfulness while portraying, say, an amazing landscape. A work of this kind fulfills her; the artist and her painting become one.

But then, talk to a young computer engineer working for, say, 70 hours in a week, spending two hours every day commuting, and constantly exhausting himself for meeting the deadline. Even an attractive “salary package” will not give him what is needed for his mental health and psychic well-being — the non-utilitarian realm of walking, singing, playing, or, say, watching a Charlie Chaplin film. “Well-paid/well-clothed”, yet spiritually impoverished and psychologically wounded over-stressed young workforce — is it what Murthy is pleading for? Is he completely unaware of the existential pain and other health issues relating to what many would regard as the “burnout” effect?

And finally, we need to rescue the power of our imagination or aspiration for good and meaningful life from what Murthy seems to be pleading for — work, work and work with the sole aim of “economic prosperity”. Well, Murthy might think that the likes of Henry David Thoreau and John Ruskin were romantic fools. After all, who bothers about them when the industry of bestseller “self- help” books — yes, another product of neoliberalism — is continually preaching us the lessons of becoming a billionaire, acquiring fame and becoming “successful”?

But then, there are still some “mad” people around who seek to whisper in our ears: There is something more to life than the act of being confined to a cubicle in the lavish corporate house, working ceaselessly, and then consuming mindlessly in a supermall on the weekend. Possibly, they are saying that “idleness” is tremendously beautiful; it enables us to know ourselves, and gives us the “surplus” time to look at the sunset and invoke Vincent van Gogh, or meditate on the play of a butterfly with a tiny yellow flower.

Pathak writes on culture, pedagogy and politics